Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One vs the other

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New_Zealand
    replied
    Thanks - Trying to get my lens setup and bought before I get my mkiii in. So the package should be 24-105 L IS and a good 50mm 1.4? The Mkiii has a 24-105 in a kit package. It is about $100 saving when you buy it with the camera.

    Leave a comment:


  • c3hammer
    replied
    The 24-70 L has chromatic fringing when images are backlit and it's no where near as sharp as my 70-200 f/4 L IS. A great range of focal lengths, great bokeh, color and contrast, but it's just a tad expensive for the image quality vs. other options. A 24-105 L IS is a much better bet with a fast 50 for low light. The 24-105 L is longer range, much sharper and the IS is really good. Especially for hand held work.

    Cheers,
    Pete

    Leave a comment:


  • New_Zealand
    replied
    What about 24-70 and a 50mm as a combo?

    Leave a comment:


  • c3hammer
    replied
    I have the 70-200 L f/4 IS and it's been an incredible lens for me. It's almost half the weight and half the cost of the f/2.8 II with nearly the identical image. A 50 f/1.4 or 85 f/2 are a much more cost effective way to get even a bit more low light ability. The combo of the 70-200 L f/4 IS and a 50 f/1.4 is much more cost effective for my needs in both $ and effort to lug around

    Cheers,
    Pete

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris Santucci
    replied
    I had the earlier 70-200 and got rid of it after seeing some comparisons to the more recent version, because the newer version is noticeably sharper (for what it's worth.)

    Leave a comment:


  • New_Zealand
    replied
    The only one I couldn't find for sell was the 70-200 2.8 IS There are f4 IS and 2.8 IS II.

    Leave a comment:


  • morgan_moore
    replied
    Ive got the 2.8 and the 4 (non IS which I got for about $400 used)

    Hate schlepping the 2.8 around and always pick the 4

    If it gets dark id go for my 85/2

    Of course a very specific need would make me take the bigger one

    S

    Leave a comment:


  • Exact
    replied
    We had the 2.8 IS II and f4 at the same time. We sold the f4. There really is a difference.

    Leave a comment:


  • paul31003
    replied
    70-200 f/2.8L IS Mark I. Price range between $1,200-$1,500. Hands down the lens you need to get if you're going to choose within that list.

    Leave a comment:


  • New_Zealand
    replied
    Thanks

    Leave a comment:


  • Samuel H
    replied
    actually, theres one more, and it's the one I'd get:

    f/4
    f/4 IS
    f/2/8
    f/2.8 IS
    f/2.8 IS version II

    (the f/2.8L IS first version is only second-hand now)

    Check out this thread: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread...olve-my-Shoots

    btw, f/4L non-IS is cheaper, but I'd get the IS version, it's a bit sharper, nearly as much as the bigger brothers:
    http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=4&APIComp=0
    http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...mp=3&APIComp=2

    Leave a comment:


  • Paper_bag
    replied
    Hang on... Before you pull the trigger, there's a couple different versions of this lens. Search B&H Photo to see. From memory, there's at least:

    f/4
    f/2/8
    f/2.8 IS
    f/2.8 IS version II

    For video, I don't think you should go lower than f/2.8 IS. The extra stop of light makes a big difference (especially for things like weddings; even then, it's not comfortably fast enough). The IS makes a huge difference. (Though this depends, of course, on your project and personal style, etc, and what sort of stabilisation devices you'll be using with the lenses, and how much shake you can take.)

    Google for the differences between version I and version II. I think it's that version II is sharper and has slightly smaller minimum focus distance (which is also a good thing -- can be extremely annoying to use version I in cramped interiors). Whether it's worth the extra money... up to you.

    Leave a comment:


  • New_Zealand
    replied
    I was thinking about the 2.8 but wanted feed back so that is what I'm going to get. I'm getting it off Amazon - this is the one I'm thinking of getting is this the good choice?

    http://www.amazon.com/Canon-70-200mm...s=canon+70-200

    Thanks for both of your input. It help closed the deal. Now just need to figure out what two primes I can't live without LOL. This is for film making only.

    Leave a comment:


  • wgzn
    replied
    dont bother with the 70-200 f4.
    if you cant afford the 2.8, you dont NEED the lens

    Leave a comment:


  • deltoidjohn
    replied
    I couldn't live without the 2.8 version. Having said that, I shoot a lot of weddings where you need all the light you can get. This lens is great for shooting speeches, even without lights, and is also great for getting reaction shots of people across the room. With the f/4 version I would need to add lights or bump the ISO up past what I consider usable.

    Your needs will obviously differ to mine, though.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X